The Madrid Protocol makes international trademark protection more accessible, but it introduces a structural risk that deserves careful attention before you build a global portfolio on top of a U.S. filing: the central attack problem.
Understanding how this works, and how to manage around it, is one of the more important pieces of Madrid portfolio strategy.
What Central Attack Means
Every international registration filed through the Madrid system is tethered to a U.S. trademark application or registration, called the basic mark. That tether is not permanent, but during the first five years after the international registration date, it is absolute.
Under TMEP section 1902.09, if the basic mark is cancelled, abandoned, invalidated, or restricted during that five-year window, the International Bureau (IB) at WIPO is required to cancel the international registration in every designated country to the same extent. If the basic mark is cancelled entirely, the international registration disappears entirely, in all countries, simultaneously.
This is called central attack because a single adverse action against the foundational U.S. mark can destroy an entire international portfolio in one move. A competitor who successfully opposes or cancels your U.S. registration does not just knock out U.S. protection. They knock out every country you designated.
What Triggers Central Attack Exposure
Central attack exposure is not limited to aggressive third-party cancellation proceedings. A number of scenarios can trigger it, some of them entirely within the applicant's own prosecution history.
If your basic mark is a U.S. application rather than a registration, a final refusal by the USPTO during examination will trigger cancellation of the international registration. An applicant who narrows the goods and services in the U.S. application during prosecution, whether voluntarily or in response to an office action, will have the corresponding goods and services cancelled from the international registration as well. Abandonment of the U.S. application, for any reason, has the same effect.
If the basic mark is a registration, cancellation proceedings brought by a third party, proceedings by the USPTO, maintenance failures, or a court judgment of invalidity can all trigger central attack. The point is that the international registration is only as durable as the U.S. mark it depends on.
The Five-Year Window
The dependency period is exactly five years from the date of the international registration, not five years from the filing date of the basic mark. After that window closes, the international registration becomes independent. A subsequent cancellation of the U.S. basic mark will no longer affect international protection in designated countries.
This means the most critical period for portfolio management is the five years immediately following international registration. Monitoring the status of the basic mark, staying current on maintenance obligations, and avoiding unnecessary amendments to the goods and services identification are all particularly important during this period.
How to Reduce the Risk
Several strategies can reduce central attack exposure without abandoning the Madrid system.
Filing the international application on the basis of a registration rather than a pending application provides somewhat more stability, since registered marks have already cleared examination and are not subject to the same prosecution risks as pending applications. That said, registered marks are still vulnerable to cancellation proceedings.
Keeping the goods and services identification as accurate and as broad as legitimately defensible reduces the risk that a prosecution amendment will narrow the scope of international protection. Overly narrow identifications create unnecessary vulnerability.
Monitoring the basic mark actively throughout the five-year window is essential. If a cancellation proceeding is filed against the U.S. registration, the international portfolio is at stake, and the defense strategy needs to account for that.
Finally, for markets that are genuinely critical to the business, direct national filings provide protection that is entirely independent of the U.S. basic mark. A hybrid approach, using Madrid for broad coverage across many markets and direct filings for the highest-priority jurisdictions, can provide the efficiency of the Madrid system while eliminating the central attack risk in the markets that matter most.
Transformation: The Partial Safety Net
If the worst happens and the basic mark is cancelled during the five-year window, the situation may not be entirely unrecoverable. The Madrid system includes a mechanism called transformation, which allows the cancelled extension of protection in each designated country to be converted into a national application that retains the international registration date as its filing date. Transformation has a strict three-month deadline and its own procedural requirements. It will be covered in a separate post, but it is worth knowing the mechanism exists when evaluating the overall risk profile of a Madrid-based portfolio.
The Bottom Line
Central attack is one of the most significant structural features of the Madrid system, and it shapes how international portfolios built on Madrid registrations should be managed. The five-year dependency period is not a reason to avoid the Madrid system, but it is a reason to treat the U.S. basic mark as the load-bearing element it is, to build in active monitoring, and to consider direct national filings in markets where losing protection overnight would be most damaging.
.svg)